```tracker searchType: frontmatter searchTarget: weight folder: daily notes line: title: Weight Tracker yAxisLabel: weight lineColor: blue ``` # The Experience of Interacting Despite it making room for use, Forsey’s account still leaves out what we consider to be an important aspect of [[the aesthetics of design]]. On her account interacting with an objects serves as a *means* of assessing how well it performs its function, but this neglects the fact that these interactions can also be, in and of themselves, aesthetically pleasing. She is right to say that certain virtues of her coffee-pot do not show up if we *simply* look at it, but, it would seem that they do show up when we *see someone else* use it: the facts that it can be picked up without risking one’s fingers or opened without strain can be learned just as easily through watching someone use it as they can by using it. Relegating use to simply a mode of asseessment leaves something out of our appreciation of design: the experience of interaction. We can begin to see this by considering a different example. A professional musician has her viola returned to her after it has been repaired, and begins to play. She might well appreciate the unique tone that only her viola can produce, she might even appreciate [[the particular]] texture and weight that this particular instrument has. These are things she has missed in the time she has had to make do with her reserve viola. It is also true that she could never play the reserve as well as she can this one –it is more cheaply made and so never quite allowed for the nuances of expression and expertise that her ‘real’ one does. However, it also seems right to say that she appreciates, and has missed, the *feeling of playing* this particular instrument. That is, her real one allows for certain sorts of interactive experiences that simply were not available from her reserve. Notice that her interactive experience is not available to any audience. If someone has heard her play the reserve and now hears her play her real one, they might well notice that the returned viola produces more pleasing tones than the reserve. An audience might also notice that the returned viola is better to play than the reserve, they hear that the real viola allows for better playing than the reserve. But the experience of interaction is available only to the viola player. Other things to add ffffffffffff ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddv She might well appreciate the unique tone that only her viola can produce, she might even appreciate [[the particular]] texture and weight that the instrument has, but it also seems right to say that she appreciates the feeling of playing this viola. She could never play her reserve viola quite as well as she can play this one, but, moreover, playing on the reserve never felt quite right. Notice that her experience of playing is out of reach of any audience: ffffffffdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdffddf edddsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdds that it can picked up without singing one’s fingers, or opened without strain can this does not mean that using the item is the only way to notice them. They will also show up if we *see someone else* using her coffee-pot: the fact that it can be picked up without singhing one’s fingers, or opened without strain can be just as easily detected through observation of use, as use itself. dsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd - Unlike [[the Functional Beauty]] account, Forsey's Kantian approach, by taking use into account, can also accommodate [[invisible design]]. - Whether or not the actions that an object allows for are aesthetically pleasing can contribute to our overall aesthetic judgement of it. - However, Forsey does not dwell on what it is for an action, or interaction, to be aesthetically pleasing. - She tends to consider the use of a [[designed object]] as a means to the end of testing the functioning of it rather than as bearer of aesthetically relevant properties that can contribute to the [[aesthetic value]] of it. - According to Forsey’s Kantian approach, the aesthetic merit of the [[designed object]] depends not only on its appearance but also on the realisation of its purpose, and use is relevant to [[aesthetic appreciation]] inasmuch as enables one to ascertain whether the purpose is properly realised. - In this way, Forsey avoids the shortcomings of [[the Functional Beauty]] account which, as we saw above, centres [[aesthetic appreciation]] around perception, focusing on qualities such as 'looking fit for function'. - In Forsey’s Kantian account, instead, the appreciator, as a user, can assess not only whether the [[designed object]] looks fit for function but especially whether it is fit for function. - However, although Forsey aptly casts [[the design]] appreciator as a user, she does not seem to care so much about what makes something aesthetically pleasing to use, and on how the user’s actions can contribute to elicit such [[aesthetic pleasure]] in virtue of being themselves aesthetically pleasing. - To fully grasp [[the aesthetics of design]], particularly where use is a primary factor, we need to explore this aspect further. - Forsey limits herself to suggesting that ease of use plays some role in our aesthetic appreciation of our interactions with objects. - In the following passages she compares what she considers a well-designed coffee-pot with a badly designed one.